This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I made a comment recently speculating that Terence Tao may be a paid promoter of AI. After some off-site discussion elsewhere, our resident shaman on whom the mods cast a long-duration silence posted my comment as a circus exhibit on Twitter to demonstrate a dangerous form of psychosis. Fortunately, OpenAI deemed this a worthy time to intervene and publish an ad featuring Terence Tao, who has taken time out of his busy schedule to assist this struggling non-profit with their promotional.
I want to dissect what I think is really going on.
For starters, every time I sit down to watch WoW on YouTube, I'm greeted with my favourite streamer telling me about the super fun game Raid Shadow Legends, which I should definitely download and play because it's super fun. Is the OpenAI-Terence Tao relationship like this? Not really. Terence Tao does appear to actually spend some time playing around with LLMs. Further, he's not exactly saying a bunch of empty marketing blather, either. In fact, probably to the annoyance of some readers here, I want to take a couple paragraphs for a technical aside, because there is actually subtlety here. I'll bound this in horizontal bars so non-technical readers can skip it:
The main talking point is that automated theorem proving is a perfect fit for LLMs precisely because it's not vulnerable to their main catastrophic failure mode: hallucination. The model can hallucinate whatever it wants, but the text still goes into the theorem prover, and if it's bullshit, well, the prover just rejects it and you query the LLM again. Do this in a loop, burn whatever unholy amount of compute you want, and if the loop stops, you've got yourself a proof! (Well, or a bug in the theorem prover. Or a "You've run out of tokens on your budget" error message. But I digress). This story is largely true. There's a giant asterisk of "Uh, so how much compute we talkin' about?", and the answer is "As much as you need or can afford, whichever comes first!" Which is, of course, the business model.
I will point out one additional technical nit-pick that annoys me because Terence Tao is working in Lean 4, which is a dependently-typed theorem prover. In classical mathematics, one is concerned solely with whether a theorem is true or false, and the structure of the proof is basically irrelevant as long as it's valid. Lean 4 is not based on this model. Rather, it's based on a more computationally-motivated model of mathematics pioneered by Brouwer in the early 1900s called "constructivism." In this world, the question isn't the boolean notion of "Is this theorem true or false?" but rather the related but distinct notion of "Which proof do you have?" To ground this in practical terms, consider the following example: I can prove that True|False and Yes|No are isomorphic, but I can do so in multiple ways: I can map True to Yes and False to No, or I can map True to No and False to Yes (and then show that there are respective inverses which preserve identity, obviously). It is in this sense that one can meaningfully say "Which proof of isomorphism?" when I say I have a proof of isomorphism. Perhaps this all sounds like technobabble, but to connect it to the preceding paragraph: you can immediately see how this does reveal some cracks into the narrative being sold there. It does actually matter which proof is produced, not merely in a social sense of "can any human understand this wall of text the LLM spit out", but in a technical, computationally-relevant sense. For pure mathematics, this distinction is often not considered important -- in fact, many classical mathematicians aren't even aware of the difference, and will be confused if you try to explain it to them and think this is all a bit silly. However, it's not a silly or minor distinction for the following reason: one of the motivations of this computational model for "theorem provers" (it's really a programming language + compiler, rebranded for mathematicians) like Lean is so that formal methods can be applied not just to classical mathematics, but to software in general. And as soon as you enter software formalisation, this distinction is no mere intellectual curiosity, but of paramount relevance. The classical-style logic in the preceding paragraph does not apply to constructivist logic used for software formalisation! I'm sure this distinction is not lost on Terence Tao. But that doesn't concern OpenAI. OpenAI is more concerned with whether the distinction will be lost on the MBAs listening to Terence Tao, and the answer is "absolutely."
Ok, no more technical details like that, I promise. Back to the social level:
So, I mentioned Raid Shadow Legends is a poor metaphor for the OpenAI-Tao relationship. Let me propose some better ones: Michael Phelps and Wheaties (with the added benefit that Terence Tao never smokes weed. See, this is why mathematicians are better than athletes), or better yet, attending Harvard University. This may seem like a strange juxtaposition, but I've done so intentionally, because the marketing is obvious in one but subtle in the other, but it's actually the same trick: the goal is to misattribute performance. With Wheaties, the goal is to sell the notion that Michael Phelps is a great swimmer because he has a healthy diet of stuff like Wheaties, and if you eat Wheaties, maybe you'll perform well, too! Of course, in reality, he was eating sugar-coated french toast and chocolate chip pancakes because he needed 10k Calories/day just to break even on energy, and the reason he's such an awesome swimmer is in large part genetics. Wheaties, or anything similar to it, has virtually no relevance to Michael Phelps at all. But what about Harvard?
Well, Harvard sells the image so well that most people outside this forum outright believe the illusion. The illusion is, of course, that attending Harvard makes you smart and likely to succeed, rather than Harvard accepting only people who were smart and likely to succeed in the first place and thus redirecting credit for these future achievements to Harvard. Mark Zuckerberg may see Harvard as a pointless waste of time, but the world sees Harvard as "The university that made Mark Zuckerberg happen!"
I like the Harvard analogy because this is surely the intent with Terence Tao. There's a high chance sooner or later Terence Tao will prove something cool "using" ChatGPT, and if he does, it would be really awesome if we could make it sound like the secret ingredient in the ChatGPT-Terence Tao alliance was ChatGPT, when obviously the actual secret ingredient is Terence Tao. The analogy I always use for this is stone soup, a European folktale where starving travelers dupe gullible townsfolk into helping them make soup from stones by requesting "extra" ingredients bit by bit until they've just made actual soup, thus astonishing the gullible townsfolk.
There are a lot of other things I could say on this, especially on the technical side, as there are a lot of clever tricks you can pull to make it look like a model is doing more than it really is, but I'll stop for now and conclude with this:
Just be cognizant that OpenAI, and all the other LLM vendors, do marketing. They have an enormous budget that dwarfs anything you have ever seen before. Remember the reality distortion field of Black Lives Matter? Or trans people? Imagine that, but like... two orders of magnitude larger. That is the level of persuasive pressure we're dealing with here.
Just take it all with a grain of salt.
I do not understand where you were trying to go with your digression about constructivism. Is this just supposed to be FUD, as in you hope non-technical readers will look at it and walk away with an understanding like "what Terry produces with his AI is not a real proof"? Because the reality is rather the opposite: any proof in a constructive system like Lean is a proof in a non-constructive system like ZFC, and certainly it is especially a proof in the unspecified system that is mathematical practice outside of a handful of particularly rigorous subfields.
Yeah, I'm not sure what his point about "the proof isn't canonical" is all about. A proof is a proof, and the underlying statement is just as valid regardless. The fact that there's no canonical isomorphism between a finaite dimensional vector space and its dual doesn't mean the two spaces aren't isomorphic or any such isomorphism is less "real".
Part of the misunderstanding is the word "proof" has different flavour in classical mathematics vs theorem prover math, which is why the word is rarely used in this world except when appealing to legacy mathematicians. The native vocabulary is "3 is a value of type Nat" or "Refl is a value of type 0 + 0 = 0". A legacy mathematician would use the word "proof" only to describe the latter, and think it odd to use the word for the former. But internal to the formal logical framework, these are same notion, and so they should have the same word.
Neither of these would be considered a "proof" by a mathematician. Those are just statements of fact. A mathematical proof is a logical argument of deduction that shows that some statement must be true if some set of premises are true. Statements of fact are used in proofs, but a single statement of fact wouldn't actually constitute a proof.
I think you've never spent any time with a formal theorem prover lol. You're conflating the definition of
+with the proofRefl : 0 + 0 = 0.Mathematicians can say whatever they want, but the story here is about mechanically-verified formal verification, and this is how formal verification works, whether legacy mathematicians think this pedantically or not.
(emphasis added)
So it seems like you're walking back the claim you made about what a (legacy) mathematician would say. Again, a legacy mathematician or any mathematician wouldn't describe that as a "proof."
An appeal to a definition is a proof ("By the definition of XYZ, we conclude..."). A definition itself is not a proof ("Let xyz be defined as ...").
The confusion is coming from the fact that
Refl : 0 + 0 = 0is the syntax of an appeal to the definition of plus. It is not the syntax of defining the+operation.Look, I'm not going to run around in circles all day about this. I'm pointing out that mathematicians are more sloppy in their vocabulary than the theorem prover, and that there are subtle differences over how terminology is used. I do not care to bikeshed endlessly over this. It's obviously true to anyone with any experience in these fields.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link